Call 2001 – Inner Temple
William is a family law barrister specialising in all matters concerning family finance including financial remedies on divorce and cohabitation disputes (TOLATA), private law children work and cases in the court of protection
William also accepts instructions on a public access basis.
He is a member of the FLBA and CoPPA
William has a particular interest in financial remedy proceedings and is widely instructed in complex financial disputes.
His cases frequently involve business assets including farms, limited companies and sole traders, inherited money, substantial pension funds, including military pensions, assets out of the jurisdiction, third party interests including family trusts and bankruptcy proceedings.
William also regularly represents parents seeking financial provision for children pursuant to Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 and non-married couples or family members who are involved in property disputes pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
As a result of his work in the Court of Protection William is also often instructed to represents vulnerable clients lacking capacity who are represented through the official solicitor or another litigation friend.
Recent cases have included:
B v E 
Representing W in a case where H was the majority shareholder in successful business he established during the marriage. H had assets in his name in excess of £1million which he sort to substantially undervalue during the proceedings. The family home was also subject to a declaration of trust which H sought to reply upon to defeat W claims.
B v B 
Representing H who retired after a lengthy career in the Police Force with a substantial pension fund. W was the sole director of her own company which she sought to establish was worthless due to the Covid-19 crisis and accordingly sought a substantial pension sharing order.
D v D 
Representing H who was the majority shareholder in the profitable family business. Both parties also had substantial private pensions. At the final hearing the Court had to consider expert evidence in relation to the value of the business and also in relation to pensions so as to offset the assets against one another.
E v E 
Representing the second wife in financial proceedings which ran simultaneously to a claim commenced by the first wife. H was a self employed builder and the Court had to consider expert evidence in relation to the value of his business as well as arguments over the priority of each wife’s financial claim.
GH v GH 
Representing H in a short marriage case where both parties married when in their 60’s. The assets in the case exceeded £2 million and included property outside of the jurisdiction, pension funds in payment and inheritance claims.
H v H 
Represented W in contested proceedings the final issues for determination included the value of H’s importation business, pension funds in excess of £1 million and the parties contribution to an investment property.
M v M 
Representing H who was a farmer in a long marriage case. The farm business including the farm house, which served as the matrimonial home, was the main assets in this case.
T v T 
Representing W in proceedings where H’s mother contributed to the purchase price of the matrimonial home and sought to establish a third party interest in the property.